Last week, I spoke about how President Barack Obama justified his prisoner swap of five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by saying former military leaders and presidents, including George Washington, have engaged in prisoner of war exchange, too.

Obama's exact words were: "This is what happens at the end of wars. That was true for George Washington; that was true for Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR; that's been true of every combat situation -- that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back. And that's the right thing to do."

From that statement alone, I revealed how Obama's made grievous errors in judgment by concluding that 1) the war is over and 2) he was engaging in a prisoner exchange like George Washington -- to take just a single example among his list of stellar leaders.

What Obama didn't tell you regarding Washington and prisoner exchange during the Revolutionary War is that both countries -- England and the U.S. -- exchanged prisoners of war because both had "few facilities to accommodate large numbers of prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, whose mission it is "to preserve, restore, and manage the estate of George Washington to the highest standards and to educate visitors and people throughout the world about the life and legacies of George Washington."

As far as buying Americans back from captivity at the price of enemy combatants, Obama needs to follow the example of Gen. Washington, who "made sure that no states holding military prisoners should trade a British soldier for an American citizen. Washington believed that this would have legitimized the British capture of more citizens, most of whom were largely defenseless."

Though no one is minimizing the understandable elation of Bergdahl's family over his release, George Washington would not have traded for him, because he didn't believe in trading prisoners of war until after the war was in fact over, treaties were signed and hostilities ceased, lest he risk the capture of further American people for ransom.

Here are my two additional grievances with Obama's prisoner of war exchange:

3) As the commander in chief, George Washington wouldn't have completely undermined the very heart and soul of the military as Obama did with his prisoner exchange, especially in light of how it is a cardinal sin in military culture to abandon one's post and platoon during war.

A little over a week ago, The Washington Post reported, "Ralph Peters, a retired lieutenant colonel and intelligence officer, wrote in National Review that a 'fundamental culture clash' exists between the president's team and those in the armed forces, as reflected by (national security adviser Susan) Rice's remarks on Bergdahl's honor."

"Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class," Peters wrote. "They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101."

Maybe a key here as to why Obama could so easily discard military code and culture is he really doesn't regard America's battleground in the world as a war on terror in the first place.

Remember the 2009 explanative memo from the White House to Pentagon staff members via the Defense Department that said that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror.' Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation'"?

Of course, while the White House plays with semantics, our courageous U.S. military personnel are continuing to fight and die on the battlefield. While the war diminishes in Obama's fairy tale mind, he just gifted the real war on terror and the Taliban with their greatest boost in years.

4) George Washington would not have emboldened America's greatest enemies around the world and put at greater risk not only U.S. military personnel but also American citizens by increasing their captivity value in the eyes of our enemies.

And what are the odds that Obama had another political ulterior motive for prisoner exchange -- namely, the turning of the American mind and media from his Veterans Affairs battlefield? For his "never waste a crisis"-saturated administration, is this hypothesis really a stretch?

On June 5, veteran newsman and CEO of WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah wrote in a column titled "What Motivates Obama?": "Is it possible that part of the calculated political motivation underlying Obama's decision was just that -- getting the VA out of the nation's headlines? At first glance, it seems counter-intuitive: Can you escape one scandal by creating another? The answer is, of course. It's called the old 'wag the dog' strategy."

The bottom line, as President Obama recently said to cadets at the United States Military Academy, is that "for the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism."

Yet his actions as commander in chief say just the opposite. Indeed, last June, he said America needed to draw down its war footing and bring it to an end.

The truth is that Obama is too conciliatory a leader to be the commander in chief of the greatest military force in human history. He says terrorism is the "most direct threat to America" to cadets yet calls the war on terror an overseas contingency operation.

He doesn't even know how to announce victory. He confessed to ABC News in 2009, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."

So how does one add up the following Obama conclusions? 1) The war, which is not really a war at all, is over, so much so that we're exchanging the release of final prisoners of war. 2) Victory won't be announced, yet the end of combat missions and the withdrawal of American troops have been.

There can be only one conclusion, at least in Obama's mind: America has lost the war on terror, particularly in the Middle East.

Facts unfortunately point to the tragic event that Sgt. Bergdahl went AWOL on his post and platoon. But even worse, facts point to the catastrophic event that President Obama just went AWOL as our commander in chief.

Interesting, educational, but does not really explain the real problem.

The real problem is that our president is at heart a Muslim and sympathetic to the jehadists and the concept of the Caliphate.

Even if we can explain how so many voters were fooled into voting for him, it is inexcusable that he has been allowed to stay in office.

He has policies and activities in motion that are creating changes in this country from which we will never recover.....until and unless the Union collapses and we start over, similar to what happened in Russia.

What version of WWII did o see? Hirohito NEVER “...came down and signed...” anything with MacArthur. Hirohito’s representatives signed for the emperor.
This jerk can twist historical facts in so many ways he should be working in a pretzel factory. No, wait, he is not even skilled enough to do that.
What a putz!

6
posted on 06/17/2014 5:50:06 AM PDT
by SPI-Man
(Kick the tires and light the fires)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.